The 94868 C, used in the footnote of my yesterday's
message was based on the k=9*10^9 factor (Coulomb's
law). It would be 94803 if the exact value of k was used
instead. This is totally irrelevant in the context of my
message (devoted to the 1/4*Pi factor) but I am puzzled.
According to Handbook of Chemistry and Physics the
new Faraday (unit of charge since 1960) is 96516 C
by physical scale or 96489 C by chemical scale. The
second number is nearly the same as the product of
the e (charge of one electron in C) and N (the Avogadro
number). Is this because one mole in physics is still not
exactly the same as one mole in chemistry?
The Handbook (69th edition) was printed in 1988. Is
it not true that by that time physicists and chemists
already used C-12 as the common base for the atomic
mass unit (thus eliminating the old "O-16 versus
O-natural -mixture" discrepancy)?
Ludwik Kowalski